I apologize for the delay in blog posts – I’ve had this written for a while, but wanted to edit it, and then never really got around to doing that. Edinburgh is going well – check out Sarah’s blog for her daily pictures/updates at http://journeysinedinburgh.blogspot.com/. I am currently sorting through about 1200 pictures, and I will hopefully start posting them to this blog at some point soon. For now, hopefully you enjoy my thoughts on capitalism.
The problem that arises when discussing political ideologies, or any sort of topic really, is one of definition and interpretation. Labels are vague approximations of a person's actual beliefs and, although this is a topic for a whole post of its own, it is important to mention this here. Thus, we will attempt to define what exactly I mean by capitalism, as well as what it means for a political or economic system to be "better" or "worse" than another.
Obviously, the terms "better" and "worse" are incredibly subjective, especially when applied to different systems. For the purposes of our discussion, since we will be talking about economic systems, I will define "better" to be "more efficient or effective at accomplishing a given goal." Obviously, we need to decide on a few goals, and this is really one of the major places where political ideologies diverge. Now, I am not looking to get into a full-on economic discussion, nor do I want to start a big debate about what it means to be prosperous and other such topics. What I really want to do is talk about my problem with capitalism: the central issue that forces me to consider alternative economic systems.
There are many different sorts of capitalism, so we are going to be acting under the assumption that we want the market to be as free as possible - low taxes, as little government interference as possible, and as much freedom as possible placed in the hands of the consumer. Additionally, we want things to be as privately owned as is feasible. We don't want to go to extremes, so let us use the US, or even Canada, as a sort of standard frame of reference. Now, we have to identify the central goals of capitalism. There are many of these, but the one that stands out as me as the primary means of justifying capitalism is the following: every person has the same capability to rise or fall in stature based upon their own personal ability, merit, and effort. If you disagree with this being a major goal of capitalism, then you may not want to read much further - although, I would be interested to know what you think the central goal is. I think the arguments presented will still be valid if you only admit to this being one of many central goals, but if you do not think that capitalism tries to do this at all, you are unlikely to appreciate any of my following arguments.
It seems like a lovely idea - equal opportunity for everyone, and success is dependant on one's personal effort and overall prowess. I am not here to debate that, although the assumption that everyone has a "place" in society based upon such things seems a little arrogant on the part of the upper class. What strikes me though is that, despite touting these values, capitalism tries as hard as possible to destroy any appearance of equal opportunity. For instance, education is only available for those who can afford it. Yes, there is government funding for those who cannot afford basic schooling – which is already against the capitalist ideal - but the price is not just monetary. Many families cannot afford the time commitment - often, it is more relevant to have a child start work as soon as possible to help feed herself and her family, rather than staying in school. In fact, for many children, this is often a necessity. The same is doubly true for University. Think about those born into abject poverty; perhaps they have been homeless from a young age, or are just barely scraping by. They are often unable to move out of this cycle, and most certainly do not have any of the same opportunities that a similarly abled person has when born into a middle-class family. Yes, the truly exceptional can rise out of these situations - with a healthy dose of luck - but it is unlikely that your average office worker would fare so well had they not had the luxury of birth.
This, to me, is one of the fundamental problems with capitalism - without equal access to education, how can anyone be expected to have equal opportunity? When you have no guarantee of basic sustenance and medical support, how can you forego putting food on your family's plate in favour of getting an education?
Without a good education, an intelligent person with a strong work ethic will be severely handicapped while looking for a job when compared to a person with equal merit but a good education. This, to me, is an inherent flaw in the capitalist system - it is difficult to change one's social and economic stature, particularly when one is born at the very bottom of the barrel. In fact, there was an excellent Cracked article about this very subject, written by a person living in an impoverished situation, found here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/. The article effectively demonstrates the issues of moving up in a capitalistic society, even without being as low as I describe, and I definitely recommend you read it.
It is easy to see why people cling to the illusion that capitalism provides the best shot at equal opportunity - after all, those who support it are often fairly successful members of the middle-class. Everyone wants to believe that they reached their position based on personal ability; they earned their spot, and luck had very little to do with it, thank you very much. More importantly, if they could do it, why can`t you? And, why should they be supporting you if you are too lazy to go out and get a job? That, to me, is the biggest concern people have with non-capitalist solutions, even if it sometimes goes unvoiced. They do not want someone else living out of their pocket, enjoying the same benefits for no additional effort.
I am not saying I have a solution. However, it seems clear to me that there is a problem, and steps can be taken to alleviate some of the disparity. First and foremost, I believe in free education. I believe that every person has the right to basic necessities - food, water, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. No one should feel as though they have to drop out of school to support their family or save up money for an ailing mother's operation, nor should they be unable to attend in the first place. Yes, someone will have to pay for this, and I believe that it should come from the pockets of the people - after all, with free post-secondary education, healthcare, and other government-funded endeavours, you should be getting a portion of your investment back. And, with a better-educated society, we can move forward collectively to a better quality of life for all.
-Michael
The problem that arises when discussing political ideologies, or any sort of topic really, is one of definition and interpretation. Labels are vague approximations of a person's actual beliefs and, although this is a topic for a whole post of its own, it is important to mention this here. Thus, we will attempt to define what exactly I mean by capitalism, as well as what it means for a political or economic system to be "better" or "worse" than another.
Obviously, the terms "better" and "worse" are incredibly subjective, especially when applied to different systems. For the purposes of our discussion, since we will be talking about economic systems, I will define "better" to be "more efficient or effective at accomplishing a given goal." Obviously, we need to decide on a few goals, and this is really one of the major places where political ideologies diverge. Now, I am not looking to get into a full-on economic discussion, nor do I want to start a big debate about what it means to be prosperous and other such topics. What I really want to do is talk about my problem with capitalism: the central issue that forces me to consider alternative economic systems.
There are many different sorts of capitalism, so we are going to be acting under the assumption that we want the market to be as free as possible - low taxes, as little government interference as possible, and as much freedom as possible placed in the hands of the consumer. Additionally, we want things to be as privately owned as is feasible. We don't want to go to extremes, so let us use the US, or even Canada, as a sort of standard frame of reference. Now, we have to identify the central goals of capitalism. There are many of these, but the one that stands out as me as the primary means of justifying capitalism is the following: every person has the same capability to rise or fall in stature based upon their own personal ability, merit, and effort. If you disagree with this being a major goal of capitalism, then you may not want to read much further - although, I would be interested to know what you think the central goal is. I think the arguments presented will still be valid if you only admit to this being one of many central goals, but if you do not think that capitalism tries to do this at all, you are unlikely to appreciate any of my following arguments.
It seems like a lovely idea - equal opportunity for everyone, and success is dependant on one's personal effort and overall prowess. I am not here to debate that, although the assumption that everyone has a "place" in society based upon such things seems a little arrogant on the part of the upper class. What strikes me though is that, despite touting these values, capitalism tries as hard as possible to destroy any appearance of equal opportunity. For instance, education is only available for those who can afford it. Yes, there is government funding for those who cannot afford basic schooling – which is already against the capitalist ideal - but the price is not just monetary. Many families cannot afford the time commitment - often, it is more relevant to have a child start work as soon as possible to help feed herself and her family, rather than staying in school. In fact, for many children, this is often a necessity. The same is doubly true for University. Think about those born into abject poverty; perhaps they have been homeless from a young age, or are just barely scraping by. They are often unable to move out of this cycle, and most certainly do not have any of the same opportunities that a similarly abled person has when born into a middle-class family. Yes, the truly exceptional can rise out of these situations - with a healthy dose of luck - but it is unlikely that your average office worker would fare so well had they not had the luxury of birth.
This, to me, is one of the fundamental problems with capitalism - without equal access to education, how can anyone be expected to have equal opportunity? When you have no guarantee of basic sustenance and medical support, how can you forego putting food on your family's plate in favour of getting an education?
Without a good education, an intelligent person with a strong work ethic will be severely handicapped while looking for a job when compared to a person with equal merit but a good education. This, to me, is an inherent flaw in the capitalist system - it is difficult to change one's social and economic stature, particularly when one is born at the very bottom of the barrel. In fact, there was an excellent Cracked article about this very subject, written by a person living in an impoverished situation, found here: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about-being-poor/. The article effectively demonstrates the issues of moving up in a capitalistic society, even without being as low as I describe, and I definitely recommend you read it.
It is easy to see why people cling to the illusion that capitalism provides the best shot at equal opportunity - after all, those who support it are often fairly successful members of the middle-class. Everyone wants to believe that they reached their position based on personal ability; they earned their spot, and luck had very little to do with it, thank you very much. More importantly, if they could do it, why can`t you? And, why should they be supporting you if you are too lazy to go out and get a job? That, to me, is the biggest concern people have with non-capitalist solutions, even if it sometimes goes unvoiced. They do not want someone else living out of their pocket, enjoying the same benefits for no additional effort.
I am not saying I have a solution. However, it seems clear to me that there is a problem, and steps can be taken to alleviate some of the disparity. First and foremost, I believe in free education. I believe that every person has the right to basic necessities - food, water, shelter, clothing, and healthcare. No one should feel as though they have to drop out of school to support their family or save up money for an ailing mother's operation, nor should they be unable to attend in the first place. Yes, someone will have to pay for this, and I believe that it should come from the pockets of the people - after all, with free post-secondary education, healthcare, and other government-funded endeavours, you should be getting a portion of your investment back. And, with a better-educated society, we can move forward collectively to a better quality of life for all.
-Michael
PS In addition to this issue with capitalism, I also have an issue with the idea of a free-market system. I may blog about that at some point, but I have a lot of other posts to write first, and I haven’t sorted through half of my thoughts about the free-market.
No comments:
Post a Comment